From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 17 02:58:04 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3EB1065679 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 02:58:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwmaillists@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f226.google.com (mail-ew0-f226.google.com [209.85.219.226]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B25D8FC17 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 02:58:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy26 with SMTP id 26so2249585ewy.3 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:58:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2i2ZlqL9RFhKDwa6wTehhbJqRLZOQHwFyyEORb/pn5g=; b=EAj3kbCmjilmLbcBEg8SG4VN+9/Uxk/+A1qn6FbIFk+iQ/44/zxytNP5xw8jtRxfaB 5S0rwC0wKdUobDWFB5aL7hDt9/Qx78fA6v7i0/NU9Adk4prtCB1Rn8/tZhUX10Ptter4 97I/SouPhVb8wCfSlt+NZGELIniHDn+/C4ZWY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=u02JUWI0/hqIgZDogvq5yWkFgxWGkMednQzk82l7VWMkCPnJ9Rgzyeek0LcOqGwJEA BkWZZsxBz8RVHsJDm/J3/jPIENtTJpgsxPfgKsIL+wtmiG8SSoYbyaVhaCBmyfRNTmlJ zH/eI8lQMgbIwrJzre7hP+kWKiPSOQ+lMkWuo= Received: by 10.213.43.67 with SMTP id v3mr1839743ebe.63.1263697083204; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:58:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com (bb-87-81-140-128.ukonline.co.uk [87.81.140.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 14sm1876935ewy.7.2010.01.16.18.58.02 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:58:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 02:58:00 +0000 From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20100117025800.4bf02054@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <4B5254FE.1000907@strauser.com> References: <4B520C71.9080301@FreeBSD.org> <1263673588.1541.60.camel@hood.oook.cz> <4B5254FE.1000907@strauser.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.3 (GTK+ 2.18.5; i386-portbld-freebsd8.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 02:58:04 -0000 On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:08:30 -0600 Kirk Strauser wrote: > On 01/16/2010 02:26 PM, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > > What is the particular scenario that the new conflicts handling > > broke for you? Often you really want to ignore locally installed > > packages and then it's better to override LOCALBASE to /nonex or > > something similar, instead of disabling conflict handling.. > Pav, I'm the OP, and described the problem in the first post. To > recap, though, say I want to upgrade from the > databases/mysql50-client port to databases/mysql51-client. Without > taking extra steps such as using -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS or removing the > CONFLICTS definition from the Makefile, I can't even start > downloading the distfiles (using "make fetch") until I pkg_delete the > old version. With the old system, I could do everything up through > building the new port so that the time between running pkg_delete and > "make reinstall" is minimized. Is it so hard to type make -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS fetch to, fetch and make -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS to build - given that this is something that's rarely needed. When I first read this it sounded bad, but the more I think about it the more I think the change is sensible. If it bothers you that much why don't you just alias make -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS to make-anyway.